United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
November 19, 2004.
JOSE SORIANO, Plaintiff,
TOWN OF CICERO, OFFICER DINO VITALO, OFFICER JASON STRUD, OFFICER VITO PACIONE, OFFICER STEVE HENDRICK, OFFICER SCOTT HARRIS, and OFFICER JEFF PAWELSKI, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN W. DARRAH, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Jose Soriano, filed suit against Defendants, the
Town of Cicero, Officer Dino Vitalo, Officer Jason Strud, Officer
Vito Pacione, Officer Steve Hendrick, Officer Scott Harris, and
Officer Jeff Pawelski. Plaintiff brings a number of claims
against Defendants, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for:
(1) excessive force, (2) failure to intervene, and (3) false
arrest and unlawful detention. The Town of Cicero has brought a
criminal action against Plaintiff, alleging that Plaintiff
committed a number of criminal offenses arising out of the same
occurrence. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to
Stay. Plaintiff seeks to stay all proceedings in this action
until the completion of the criminal action against Plaintiff in
state court. For the following reasons, that motion is denied.
The facts, for the purposes of this motion, are as follows.
Plaintiff alleges that some of the Defendant officers used
unjustified, unlawful force in shooting Plaintiff through the
spinal Here, Plaintiff has failed to identify how his constitutional
claims in this case will interfere with the state criminal
proceeding; the criminal claims deal with Plaintiff's conduct
before he was injured. As such, Younger abstention is not
Plaintiff contends that the Holten case was effectively
stayed because the discovery could not be completed. Plaintiff
also argues that, in this case, Defendants have already refused
to produce discovery because that would cause interference with
the criminal case. However, discovery was stayed in Holten
based on an assertion of privilege by the defendants. Holten v.
City of Genoa, No. 02 C 50201, 2003 WL 22118941, at *3 (N.D.
Ill. Sept. 12, 2003). The issue of privilege is not properly
before the Court.
Based on the above, Younger abstention is not warranted.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Stay is
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.